I recently bought a new car for the first time and the level of poor customer service, anti-consumer acts and outright trickery were appalling. Do they not depend on repeat customers?
At least if the dealership model disappears, it's the manufacturer's own reputation at stake, not whoever owns the franchise.
Owing to an affection for horsepower and some fortunate professional choices, I spent a long time driving higher-end cars (mostly from Germany).
The dealer experience when buying a BMW, say, is astonishingly easy and reasonable (IME) vs. the same process of visiting a "normal" dealer. I knew this intellectually, but when we were looking for a new car a few years ago, after I had "recovered" from my sports car mania, we looked at several conventional dealers including Ford and Mazda.
Holy CRAP those experiences were AWFUL. I mean just TERRIBLE. Creepy dealers who clearly thought they were going to put one over on us, skeevy and hamfisted attempts to rush a sale, the whole nine yards. It's just BANANAS that this persists.
(For the record, we ended up with a VW. At the time, it was kind of right after the whole scandal, and they were fairly motivated to sell cars, which worked to our benefit. And the GTI is a hell of a lot of fun while being (a) cheap and (b) practical. No word of it a lie, driving it is at least 80% as much fun as driving my old 911 was.)
It really depends on the brand, the better the brand the better the dealership(in my experience, with one exception).
- MG, absolutely shit experience, the salesman was literally trying to scam us by making up stuff that doesn't exist
- Nissan, Toyota, Citroen - garbage customer service, dealing with salespeople felt like being a tasty prey surrounded by lions
- Volkswagen - pretty good just.....cheap. like, the bare minimum of what I'd consider acceptable. Heavy push to upsell you stuff.
- Mercedes - best experience I had, actual friendly salespeople, didn't feel like I was being scammed, post-sales support was phenomenal, would seriously consider another Mercedes just for that
- Volvo - purchase experience was very good, haggled down a lot and it didn't seem like a huge deal, but we'll see about their post-purchase experience, have a service coming up and they've been trying to upsell me stuff already which I think is a bit dodgy. Meh, time will tell.
- Range Rover - despite being a luxury brand every single dealership of theirs treats the customer like a pest to get rid of. You know why? Because the average waiting time for a new RR is about 12 month+. They know they will sell cars no matter what,so why bother.
But yeah, obviously your milage will vary.
And there's one other thing - dealerships still have one good function. At least here in UK and EU it's the seller who sold you a product, so if something goes wrong your have your local dealership you can sue or pursue to make you whole. Would you do the same if it was a direct relationship with the manufacturer? If say, Volvo refuses to fix my car, can I go and sue Volvo? No, I'd use the entire strength of the customer protection system in this country to get the seller(the dealership) to fix my car, regardless of what the manufacturer says.
Most people don't buy enough cars for repeat sales to matter. If you trade in your car for a new one every 3 years, and always go for the same brand it might matter. However if you sometimes buy GM, sometimes Toyota, then the dealer should assume that you won't be back because odds are you won't, and this is a common enough case that the dealer just assumes it for everyone. If there is reason for the dealer to believe you will be back to buy your next car you will get better service.
Worse for the dealer, everybody walks in having done their research. Most people know exactly how much the dealer paid for the car, and want it for that price leaving the dealer with nothing. There is thus no reason to treat the customer well when there isn't even any money to make. In fact the biggest dealers sell every car at a loss, making it up in factory incentives and post sales tactics which are bad for customer service, but what the customer really wants.
Most people don't buy enough cars to know what good sales actually would be. If you really want to know what good service is you need to average more than one car a month (sometimes it is every month, sometimes it is a large order every year). These customers are rare (always a business), but they do get a completely different experience as there is real reason to keep them happy.
For a dealer though sales are a distraction. They only sell cars at all because that is a cost of doing business to get the parts and service business. These are the real money maker. The first couple years they get everything (and the factory pays not the customer, always nice to tell someone there is no charge for major work). Many are trying to make themselves good places to go even after warranty is expired (that is reasonable prices).
The above applies to new cars only. Used car sales is completely different. (most new car dealers also make a ton of money on used car sales)
Saturn had a great business model and I'm sad that they went under in 2009. There was no negotiating the price of a new car, which tended to make the relationship with the car salesman a bit better. (my mom sold cars for 20+ years, Saturn for a few of those).
Though, the dealers could still screw you on trade-ins or on selling used cars.
Pre-00s Saturn was great. Then the bean counters crushed them and they became just another badge. It will probably be a standard textbook corporate politics lesson for MBAs someday.
Yeah, "no haggle" dealers still have some other levers. I'd also point out that a lot of people want to negotiate because they at least think that they come out ahead as opposed to having to just pay sticker.
I don't love dealers and can't say my last experience about a decade ago was great. But it definitely helps if you don't need financing and are prepared to just donate your old clunker if you don't get offered enough.
I bought a "no haggle" car recently and there was a pretty aggressive sales pitch for the extended warranty, which we haggled about. I think from the dealer's point of view, the car price is what it is (I'm just going to ask for KBB price anyway), but they really want the service money.
I bought my last car from a dealer that wasn't super convenient to me because they had the vehicle I was looking for on their lot. They were very insistent I said hello to the service manager even though their location meant I was never going to take my car there.
Yes, I bought my car during COVID, so I was just thinking hurry up, I want to get out of your virus cave already! On the plus side, the masks meant I could stone face during the haggle.
In the traditional dealer market, the quality of say Ford dealer A to Ford dealer B, is a MUCH bigger difference than the difference between brands. But this is something very hard to figure out.
I contend that even if Tesla made normal ICE vehicles, their no dealer strategy is a long term win. Dealers are horrible. The trickery to buy and sell a car is terrible.
There is a common pattern where a startup is named after their main product, grows to the point of needing diversification, and starts being limited by their name.
Marvel Studios writing it as a baddie is not a very compelling reason to avoid automation. As of today, the vast majority of autonomous devices and robots are factory devices that have minimal input from humans.
Or, it's a surprisingly relevant comparison (on the topic of the article) using pop culture references? Augmented humanity vs. the best AI they can create.
When it comes to titles for articles, this is both memorable and far less click-baity as is normal these days.
Any time Facebook's UI is insulted, it's common to see the defence that it's a feature, not a bug, because clearly it works or a competitor would replace them. That time spent improving it is time wasted, because it doesn't make money. I see this as proof that a highly-scalable market doesn't optimise for good, it optimises for good-enough, and there's a lot of potential revenue lost between good and good-enough.
Sadly, competition is difficult to flourish in the current environment because of Facebook's market share and tactics.
It's not as bad in the US compared to other countries especially developing countries where Facebook is pretty much the only online channel. Sometimes, people only have access to Facebook and not the rest of the internet.
doesn't optimise for good, it optimises for good-enough
It's about pride. Not everyone has pride in their work, in their person, or in their actions.
I once worked with one of these "good enough" people. He bought his wife the cheapest things because they were "good enough." All he was focused on was the ticket price. Not the quality. Not the workmanship. Not going with a good company instead of a bad company.
It's become more common these days in everything from consumer goods to personal behavior. There was an article in the newspaper yesterday saying that sales of Folger's Crystals is up 14%. It's "good enough" coffee. There's a congressman up for re-election right now who admits to having an affair with an intern. His campaign doesn't hide this fact that would have made him un-electable ten years ago. His behavior is "good enough."
It's like all the Facebook and Google employees who are working on things that make the world a worse place. They're making money, so that's "good enough" for them. Someone else can be moral.
You don't need to sell order flow to make money when people are letting you hold their billions. Trading 212 already offer commission-free trading in the UK.
That passes the buck on to the university addmissions teams. Then it's the same story with Oxbridge as the antagonists.
Fundamentally it's a hard problem: the admissions require more information than is available. But...
> All this fiasco does is demonstrate how unnecessarily reductive the whole concept is.
...there never really was enough information. This is an important factor IMO. The system has always been unfair, now it's less fair and in a colder, more obvious , more systematic way that resonates with the current political climate around technology. Politically it's hard for this government to get away with standing by a policy that adversely affects poor students in the same way it would have been hard for a left-wing government to institute the current fiscal policy.
>kids
Nit: almost all of them are now legally adults. At university they can look forward to this twilight age where they are treated as an adult when it's about financial obligations and treated as a child when it's their institutions forcing policy upon them.
The Tory line has always been "Work hard and get ahead." It's an outright lie, because the reality has always been "Go to the right school and have the right parents and get ahead."
But much middle class [1] and some working class Tory support still believes in the social status dream, and this fiasco has directly undermined that narrative.
The party is getting huge heat from its base over this, not just because of their future prospects, but because some of them are now wondering if "Work hard and get ahead" has ever been true for them.
[1] Note for the US - in the UK "middle class" specifically means "Highly educated professionals with significant cultural and political capital" not just "People with a degree making decent money."
> The Tory line has always been "Work hard and get ahead." It's an outright lie, because the reality has always been "Go to the right school and have the right parents and get ahead."
But it's not as simple as that, either. Coincidentally, I just read an obituary of John Hume, who was born into poverty in Derry and rose -- through education and hard work -- to become a leading politician and a Nobel prize winner.
I find the elected fascist to be an interesting thought experiment. If someone was fairly elected on a platform of genocide, would you comply? If someone doesn't, does that mean democracy is second to morality? And, if they don't, do they think that person should be allowed to stand on that plaform?
Duh, obviously democracy ranks way lower than morality.
Whether someone should be allowed to campaign for genocide depends on the laws of the country. In modern Germany platforms like that are explicitly forbidden. But the laws of the Weimar Republic were more value agnostic.
You're inventing a stance to get angry about.